The Case for Romney-Ryan
If selecting a vice president just means picking someone safe who won't alter the tone or tenor of the 2012 race, then Tim Pawlenty or Rob Portman are fine vice presidential selections for Mitt Romney. But if Romney decides to play against type, setting aside his instinct for total risk aversion, I'd recommend he consider the potential of Paul Ryan as his choice.
Here's the basic case. The general sentiment of the Ryan boomlet is this: unlike Pawlenty or Portman, Ryan changes the conversation in this election. The left might find that favorable; they believe Ryan's ideas are too politically toxic to win on them nationally. But there are a number of reasons I believe Ryan is a less risky choice than some might argue, and unlike those who believe Romney can win with his play-it-safe strategy, counting on the unemployment situation to vault him into the White House, I think Ryan changes the conversation in a way that would prove electorally helpful to Romney.
A Romney-Ryan ticket would refocus both campaigns on entitlements, fiscal policy, and issues of debt and deficit immediately - issues that Romney feels he can lead on, where Obama has not, and where Ryan is an expert in arguing in the public square. Ryan sends a message about the seriousness of the fiscal challenge we face, one that Portman and Pawlenty do not.
What's more, the attack is coming anyway. This fall, the left will tie Romney to Ryan's ideas regardless of whether he's the choice. The White House is going to blanket Florida with "they're going to kill you" ads; so if you're going to get the granny over the cliff ads anyway, why not get a guy fully experienced in responding to them?
Having your best defender on an area of policy on your ticket is an advantage. Ryan's ability to defend his policies, and his improvement in making the case for them, would be a strong asset for Romney. Ryan has been thoroughly subjected to the media gauntlet and the pressure of the White House. He is used to the hot lights now, and comfortable making the case for his ideas. Ryan's argument for his approach has also improved dramatically in the past year or so - where his opponents still talk numbers, he talks increasingly of morality.
Ryan may be more open to parachuting out of the House of Representatives now than he was a year ago, and while he has no executive experience, he is from a swing district, not red America. Ryan is used to having to win indies and moderate Democrats. He married into a prominent Democratic family and knows how to communicate in the Midwestern states Romney is clearly targeting. Ryan has been fully vetted, is a known quantity for the media, and is respected as intelligent and eloquent. All this serves to make him less risky than you might think.
Now I've been critical of Ryan's most recent budget plans, and skeptical of his shift to the middle on competitive bidding. He has his defects, and his voting record is more moderate than you might expect - on TARP, on the auto bailouts, and more. He has no foreign policy experience to speak of. But out of those reportedly being considered, I think Ryan has the best rapport with Romney, complements him well, excites the base, frustrates the left, and provides a ready defender for the White House's line of attack.
Portman still seems the likeliest choice to me, checking so many of the boxes of what Romney values and what he needs. Pawlenty has many advantages on paper, but he's about as exciting as boiled squash - even if he does give the best shoulder rubs. And I see nothing in Romney's past that would suggest a bolder pick than Ryan - someone like Bobby Jindal, who meets every distinction of being qualified for the presidency on day one, is just out of character for Romney. And if he does have the boldness to pick Ryan, I think it would help redefine this election as a serious choice between two paths - one which offers eternal accelerated growth in government and entitlements, and another which makes a serious attempt to take on our fiscal problems - instead of one that is just playing it safe and hoping to squeeze out a victory without also winning the argument about these competing ideas.
- Comment (41)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jun '12
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
No, no, no, a thousand times, no!
Ryan is best right where he is. Let us remember that Constitutionally, all spending bills must originate in the House.
Ryan in the Chair of the House Budget Committee is in the best possible place for his policies to actually be implemented, as opposed to just used for campaign talking points.
Remove Ryan from that committee and you give the establishment Republicans a chance to put a squish in as chairman and then you'll get nowhere on spending cuts.
Leave Ryan right where he is. Pick someone else for Veep.
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
@ConservativeWanderer: Ryan is term-limited from the Budget Committee, and Way and Means won't open up til Camp steps down.
Moving to Scott Garrett (next in line on Budget) is not a significant step down in ideology. He's a lifetime ACU and Club for Growth 100 percenter. And as Vice President, Ryan would take on a significant role in shaping policy on both sides of Capitol Hill.
Edited on August 3, 2012 at 9:53pmMay '10
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
Well said, Ben. I expect Romney to pick someone generally unknown, like Pawlenty. But Ryan would excellently focus the campaign on fiscal issues.
Jun '12
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
Ben Domenech: @ConservativeWanderer: Ryan is term-limited from the Budget Committee, and Way and Means won't open up til Camp steps down.
Moving to Scott Garrett (next in line on Budget) is not a significant step down in ideology. He's a lifetime ACU and Club for Growth 100 percenter. And as Vice President, Ryan would take on a significant role in shaping policy on both sides of Capitol Hill. · 6 minutes ago
Edited 1 minute ago
The term-limit rule can be waived. See Kasich, John; Nussle, Jim, and Spratt Jr., John, for three examples.
Nov '11
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
Also: Ryan has been so influential less because his position is so intrinsically powerful than because there has been a huge leadership vacuum -- which he has stepped forward to fill. With a Romney/Ryan administration, that vacuum won't be there anymore.
He's personable and complements Romney well -- different without overshadowing him as a more charismatic Rubio or Christie might. He has a proven ability to win Democratic voters: like those who voted to keep Walker but told pollsters they'd vote for Obama too.
And, while he might have a bold message, he stays on message, which I think is (rightly) very important to the Romney team. In fact, given candidates Obama, Biden, Romney, and Ryan, Ryan is probably the least likely of the four to say something damagingly stupid in front of the cameras.
Jun '10
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
ConservativeWanderer: No, no, no, a thousand times, no!
Ryan is best right where he is. Let us remember that Constitutionally, all spending bills must originate in the House.
Ryan in the Chair of the House Budget Committee is in the best possible place for his policies to actually be implemented, as opposed to just used for campaign talking points.
Remove Ryan from that committee and you give the establishment Republicans a chance to put a squish in as chairman and then you'll get nowhere on spending cuts.
Leave Ryan right where he is. Pick someone else for Veep. · 23 minutes ago
I hate to disagree with you CW (I think we're kindred spirits) but after landing on several others for a while, I think I'm now a Ryan man (I tend to go with one I've thought about more recently).
If not Ryan, then Rubio. I won't cry if it's Portman, but I'll be a bit upset if it's Pawlenty (who I respect, and who would be an excellent cabinet member, but who was underwhelming as a presidential candidate).
Jun '12
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
tabula rasa
I hate to disagree with you CW (I think we're kindred spirits) · 0 minutes ago
Disagree all you want. It doesn't hurt my feelings that you're wrong.
(I'M KIDDING!)
Seriously, if I didn't have a thick skin and couldn't handle disagreement even with friends, I wouldn't have started my blog years ago. I knew darned good and well what I was getting in to, and I was -- and am -- ready for it.
Jun '10
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
Certainly not fair to Ryan, or his budget policies, but very hard to do this kind of cheap attack on Pawlenty or Portman:
-
Again, it's not fair negative advertising, or even close to fair, but pushing back is time consuming, and there's not a lot of time.
Jun '10
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
ConservativeWanderer
tabula rasa
I hate to disagree with you CW (I think we're kindred spirits) · 0 minutes ago
Disagree all you want. It doesn't hurt my feelings that you're wrong.
(I'M KIDDING!)
Seriously, if I didn't have a thick skin and couldn't handle disagreement even with friends, I wouldn't have started my blog years ago. I knew darned good and well what I was getting in to, and I was -- and am -- ready for it. · 1 minute ago
Let's arm wrestle then.
Seriously, though, wouldn't you like to see a Ryan-Biden debate, purely for entertainment value? I'd pay money (to the RNC) to see it.
Jun '12
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
tabula rasa
ConservativeWanderer
tabula rasa
I hate to disagree with you CW (I think we're kindred spirits) · 0 minutes ago
Disagree all you want. It doesn't hurt my feelings that you're wrong.
(I'M KIDDING!)
Seriously, if I didn't have a thick skin and couldn't handle disagreement even with friends, I wouldn't have started my blog years ago. I knew darned good and well what I was getting in to, and I was -- and am -- ready for it. · 1 minute ago
Let's arm wrestle then.
Seriously, though, wouldn't you like to see a Ryan-Biden debate, purely for entertainment value? I'd pay money (to the RNC) to see it. · 0 minutes ago
Not half as much as I'd like to see Jindal-Obama. I'd even see if I could afford a plane ticket to see that one in person.
Mar '11
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
I don't think Romney can't wrest the narrative from Obama by just being the pragmatic "fixer" candidate--and I think the polls are, and will continue to, make that increasingly apparent. He's got to make a case that's dramatic enough to command the narrative and the attention of the public.
Nobody does that better than Ryan.
If you want to be good at these jobs, you have to be willing to lose these jobs.
The same might be said of elections. I think there's a strong case to be made for his presence on the ticket. It's not unproblematic, but I think it would be a net benefit.
Nov '11
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
Mel Foil: Certainly not fair to Ryan, or his budget policies, but very hard to do this kind of cheap attack on Pawlenty or Portman:
-
Again, it's not fair negative advertising, or even close to fair, but pushing back is time consuming, and there's not a lot of time. · 0 minutes ago
Fair point: but if Portman or Pawlenty is the VP, I think the only difference is that Romney himself will be the one pushing Granny over the cliff.
The question isn't whether to make Medicare an issue or not -- Romney has already done that, and the next Mediscare attack is coming. It's whether Ryan, who has already faced that kind of cheap attack, is better equipped to help Romney respond effectively.
Jul '12
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
I'd love to see David Petraeus on the ticket.
Nov '10
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
Ryan is supremely capable of stating the conservative case. He can frame it much better than Romney, who seems to be only now coming around to it in a heartfelt way - perhaps he's had some really good coaching. I suspect he's always understood it innately but never had to articulate it.
And yes, it would be worth any amount of liberal spittle to see the Ryan/Biden debate.
Mar '11
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
The attack is coming, one way or another.
The ONLY effective response requires a VERY charismatic and *nice* responder, someone who is very, very difficult to demonize.
For my money, Ryan and Rubio are the only politicians who have already shown they are able to do this. I would be *thrilled* if either was picked.
I think Portman would be a terrible choice.
Jun '10
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
No, they're not that classy. They'll have Ann Romney ride by and have her horse kick Granny over the cliff, after which Ann and Mitt will high-five each other.
Nov '10
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
Pawlenty and Portman both would be bad picks. If Romney's guiding principle is to "first, do no harm" then that signals an approach to decision making that will throw conservatism back into the glory days of 2007. Why not do a little harm? Why not pick a guy that will not only bring tons of enthusiasm to your campaign AND have the added benefit of irking the hell out of your opponent?
I'm starting to warm to Romney and I hope he'll step a bit out of his precious comfort zone.
Dec '10
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
I, too, am leaning towards Ryan. I didn't want him to run for President, but he has gotten another year in the House, by avoiding that. The Chairmanship issue is no longer as important. He's too "moderate" for my tastes, but Rubio should not be a consideration. We need Rubio in the Senate. Quite frankly, we will probably need Ryan in the Senate, presiding, and when neccesary, casting tie-breaking votes. In the near term, the Senate is going to be the problematic chamber.
Nov '10
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
Agreed. We DO need Ryan in the Senate, because from there he will move to Florida guv, and thence to the WH. Rubio's trajectory is clearly toward POTUS, whereas Ryan's is not, and he (Rubio) needs the executive experience which he will surely not get as veep. He's just not designed for that position.
May '11
Re: The Case for Romney-Ryan
Ryan, Rubio, or Jindal
Accept no substitutes